Open all hours?

Two recent cases where the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol were reduced at licensing review hearings highlight the importance of partnership working, writes Andrew Woods.

Two recent cases, involving The Public, 531-533 King's Road and The Marathon Restaurant, saw the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol reduced at licensing review hearings. In The Public case the decision was taken by the Kensington Licensing Committee. In the other case – Marathon Restaurant v Camden LBC [2011] EWHC 1339 (QB) – a Camden Licensing Committee decision was upheld on appeal and in the High Court.

In the Camden case, the issues surrounded managing numbers internally and compliance with licensing conditions. The police applied for a review of the restaurant licence, and the local authority reduced its operational hours for the sale of alcohol and added conditions. The decision was upheld by a district judge, and the High Court was then asked to decide whether the district judge was wrong to impose conditions that were neither necessary nor proportionate and whether there was an error in law in making findings of facts in light of the burden of proof.

The High Court held that the restaurant bore the burden of showing that the decision was wrong and decided that the approach adopted by the district judge was correct. The police evidence, which included a certain amount of hearsay, was admissible. Where it was expressly rebutted by the restaurant, and where the restaurant's evidence was not specifically challenged, then the restaurant's evidence was preferred. The district judge quite clearly answered the questions the Licensing Act 2003 posed and the decision was plainly supported by the evidence.

In The Public case, a local residents' association brought review proceedings against the premises, alleging public nuisance and crime and disorder. The review proceedings were supported by the police and environmental health officers, but hotly disputed by the operator of the premises, who either denied that the issues referred to by the residents even existed or, in circumstances where it was accepted that there was some nuisance, stated that significant improvements had been made. The residents' association alleged that they found it very difficult to deal with the operator who did not appear to want to work in partnership with them and who did not appear willing to sort any issues out.

The Kensington Licensing Committee were satisfied that the premises - and the customers of the premises - were causing public nuisance and committing crime and disorder and accordingly reduced the hours of this high-end nightclub to 12:00 a.m. The Committee decided that there was clear and direct evidence that local residents were being disturbed by the noise created by the crowds and that the premises were not receptive to the concerns of the residents.

These cases highlight the need for all premises licence holders to work in partnership with the authorities and with local residents. Responsible operators should not be concerned about visits from responsible authorities and/or residents, if licence conditions and the licensing objectives are being complied with. If issues are raised about public disorder or public nuisance, then operators should objectively look into these issues and engage the authorities or the residents' associations. It seems that it more important now than ever before to ensure that the 'working in partnership' principle is upheld.

Andrew Woods is a partner at Walker Morris. He can be contacted on 0113 283 2500 or by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..